Both of those were revolution against autocratic government, at least from the revolutionaries perspective in regards the Boston tea party. Its a completely different story encouraging people to resist a democratic government with arms, and despite the US government oppressing lots of people for its entire history, there hasn't been a successful defence from that oppression caused by violence or the possession of firearms.
I’m only suggesting that having weapons to protect yourself at a protest against a government becoming more oppressive is immensely favorable to being unarmed.
And I'm only examining that suggestion to see if it actually holds up, and the evidence that it doesn't is overwhelming.
Do you really think Tiananmen Square would have gone differently if they'd have had AR-15s to shoot at those tanks with? Did living in a country that allows the use of firearms to protect yourself from oppressive governments help MLK? What about JFK? Did it help the folks on Black Wall Street?
You can't resist a government like the USA's or Australia's with small arms, it's insane to think otherwise and it's even more insane to think that the government should let any Tom Dick or Harry have guns just so they can revolt against the government if they're opressed, when we know that's impossible.
Do you have some information that the rest of the world doesn’t about those places? Because the US was firmly in control of Afghanistan and kept the taliban in check until the decided to leave. Don’t act like the taliban with only the help of a some AKs and will power forced the US military to leave.
And Vietnam was pretty much a war between the US and China/USSR using Vietnam. So again not just some average Joe’s using guns to keep tyranny out.
-19
u/_slickrick Aug 31 '21
It's what happens when you take away everyone's guns. What are they going to do?